Thread: Surface grinder floor space?

Greetings,

I'm in the early phase of constructing a shed extension of 4.5m x 3.0m. It's to house a compressor, dust collection and possibly a surface grinder. I don't know a lot about surface grinders, so this is about planning for the fact that I might get one one day, proper planning and all that stuff. For clarity it's likely one of the 4.5m walls will have a door and the compressor plus dust collection. The grinder would sit against the opposite wall. One of the 3.0m walls will have a largish door as well (possibly a little over 1.6m wide!) The concrete floor has not yet been poured although the footings are done and the roof beams and purlins are up with the roofing waiting for available man hours.

I've been looking at slightly bigger grinders with say 600 x 200 magnetic chucks, I'll use the Jones & Shipman 1400 for example. I have downloaded the manual and the machine's front to back distance is listed as 52" or similar plus up to another 12" for handwheels projecting from the front. Around 64" or 1.6m! That distance will create a somewhat confined work space. I'm hoping I have misunderstood the floor space requirements and some of you with surface grinders can give me a better idea of front to back depth requirements.


Cheers

The Beryl Bloke

Originally Posted by Theberylbloke

Greetings,

I'm in the early phase of constructing a shed extension of 4.5m x 3.0m. It's to house a compressor, dust collection and possibly a surface grinder. I don't know a lot about surface grinders, so this is about planning for the fact that I might get one one day, proper planning and all that stuff. For clarity it's likely one of the 4.5m walls will have a door and the compressor plus dust collection. The grinder would sit against the opposite wall. One of the 3.0m walls will have a largish door as well (possibly a little over 1.6m wide!) The concrete floor has not yet been poured although the footings are done and the roof beams and purlins are up with the roofing waiting for available man hours.

I've been looking at slightly bigger grinders with say 600 x 200 magnetic chucks, I'll use the Jones & Shipman 1400 for example. I have downloaded the manual and the machine's front to back distance is listed as 52" or similar plus up to another 12" for handwheels projecting from the front. Around 64" or 1.6m! That distance will create a somewhat confined work space. I'm hoping I have misunderstood the floor space requirements and some of you with surface grinders can give me a better idea of front to back depth requirements.


Cheers

The Beryl Bloke

Ask variant22 - his has a 600 x 200 chuck and is a J&S. I've seen it, the floor space it takes up is pretty serious. Don't forget the dust collector.

PDW

Originally Posted by Theberylbloke

I've been looking at slightly bigger grinders with say 600 x 200 magnetic chucks, I'll use the Jones & Shipman 1400 for example. I have downloaded the manual and the machine's front to back distance is listed as 52" or similar plus up to another 12" for handwheels projecting from the front. Around 64" or 1.6m! That distance will create a somewhat confined work space. I'm hoping I have misunderstood the floor space requirements and some of you with surface grinders can give me a better idea of front to back depth requirements.

As PDW mentioned the 1400's have a serious footprint. They are a bit deceiving when looking a photos. The table moves quite a lot on the extents (mine moves to the end of the coolant tank on one end and the end of the dust extractor at the other). With the "hand wheel protruding" - I think that might be the fact that the table moves forwards on the ways. The grinding head is stationary. My table has 12" of travel towards the operator. Add at least 4" projection for the hand wheels and you get 16".

I have attached the base plan from the manual and a perspective shot of the size of my 600mm chuck. I can measure the actual footprint if you want? I doubt it is any less than the manual however.

Jones_Shipman_floor_space.jpg IMG_1235.jpg

The 1400 is tiny really......

One thing to keep in mind is access to the hydraulics, does the machine have rear access only like my Blohm? If it does putting it up against the wall could lead to major frustration. A few months ago i lost all my hydraulic power, after a quick look in the back one of the overload valves had come loose and was wasting all the pressure. Easy fix but would be a nightmare if i could not get into the hydraulics.

I have a couple of grinders with 600x200 chucks. A TOS BPH20 and a Repco-Power S6.

Attached is a copy of the TOS footprint. As you can see front to back distance is 1410mm and left to right (including travel) is 2460mm. There is a back cover so you can use different pulleys therefore probably need another 600mm or so, which would make it around 2000mm for front to back.

I don't have a schematic for the Repco-Power but visually it takes even more space and it is a larger and heavier machine.

My suggestion is whatever machine you get of this size, it might be best to place it in a corner otherwise one of them could potentially take over half your shed space.

Hope this helps.

Spiro

Thank you for your replies gentlemen,

Yikes and awkward are words that come to mind.

PDW, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Variant22 - nice looking 1400X, thanks for the diagram.

Ueee, This is a new and interesting definition of the word "tiny" I have not previously encounted! I did think a bit about acess to the rear of the machine after I posted.

smxas, Thanks for the response and .pdf, half the extension could disappear under one of these

The .pdf from smxas confirms the inportance of good planning, I've noted the 400mm deep concrete footing. The J & S plan shows 600mm. I'll have to decide exactly where to put a machine of this size before pouring the slab.

Cheers

The Beryl Bloke

I wouldn't worry too much about the slab thickness. I have all 2.7T of the Blohm on 5" of 30MPA and it is fine.

And yes, even though the Blohm is only 600x300 it makes most SG's of the same capacity look tiny......

Originally Posted by Theberylbloke

The .pdf from smxas confirms the inportance of good planning, I've noted the 400mm deep concrete footing. The J & S plan shows 600mm. I'll have to decide exactly where to put a machine of this size before pouring the slab.

Cheers

The Beryl Bloke

I know for a fact that variant22's grinder isn't sitting on 400mm of concrete (though considering the location there might be 2km of rock under the 100mm of concrete....).

My planer is sitting on a 100mm reinforced slab as is the Monarch lathe. The lathe is 2.6 tonnes, the planer over 2 tonnes. The HBM is 3.5 tonnes. Neither move - I did compact the substrate very well before pouring the concrete though.

Short form - don't obsess over it. If you can pour thicker, great. As long as the slab isn't on a swamp, you'll be fine. Might have to re-level every so often.

PDW

PS - FWIW I'd consider this thread metalwork related - you want to buy a machine and want the dimensions & constraints to make it work. Happy to offer what little I know here.

Manufacturers specifications for slab thickness for their industrial machines are pretty much based on the assumption that there will be many other machines adjacent to theirs, perhaps a 50 Ton stamping press doing its thing along side other vibration producing machinery.

For the home workshop environment this is rarely the case, and 400mm, 600mm slabs for a surface grinder weighing round the 1500kg mark is quite a bit of overkill. even a 100mm slab, provided it has a good base under it can bear quite a weight. Probably a 150mm slab properly laid is better but I have seen a much bigger Blohm than Uee's on a 100mm slab with a10mm steel plate of slightly larger footprint between the concrete and the grinder.

Peter

Hi BerylBloke,

Like everyone else has said, no need to go crazy on the concrete thickness, I have a 600x300 surface grinder, maybe 2 tonnes? it sits on a 100 mm raft slab. 5 point leveling is a pain.

I can recommend putting a micron resolution DRO on the downfeed, I did it earlier this year, and makes a big difference in keeping track of where you are.

Ray

Originally Posted by RayG

I can recommend putting a micron resolution DRO on the downfeed, I did it earlier this year, and makes a big difference in keeping track of where you are.

Ray

Where did you get yours from? I'm having similar thoughts WRT the cylindrical grinder...

PDW

Originally Posted by PDW

Where did you get yours from? I'm having similar thoughts WRT the cylindrical grinder...

PDW

I got a cheapie from Meister in Singapore, you need to make sure the glass scale is a 1 micron version. When I get back tonight I'll try to find a link.

Ray


EDIT: http://www.thedrostore.com/

Originally Posted by RayG

I got a cheapie from Meister in Singapore, you need to make sure the glass scale is a 1 micron version. When I get back tonight I'll try to find a link.

Ray


EDIT: http://www.thedrostore.com/

Thanks - once I get the drive system sorted out and see how the machine performs, I'll get back to this. Just like a surface grinder, with a cylindrical, the micron level feed capability does matter.

PDW

Thank you all for the responses.

[QUOTE=PDW;1897654]I know for a fact that variant22's grinder isn't sitting on 400mm of concrete (though considering the location there might be 2km of rock under the 100mm of concrete....).

And that one line sums up the situation. The sub-surface does matter.

I once saw a quite expensive industrial washing machine suffer considerable damage due to lack of slab thickness, the laundry concerned was built on coral debris. No warranty on that job even though the machine was only 2 months old.

I am in the wet/dry tropics on a highly reactive clay soil (technically it's class P, the most highly reactive type, if I remember right). At this time of year (towards the end of the dry) it is usual to have cracks in the ground of 1cm to 2cm width.

Those drawings with X amount of concrete, are for sites like mine. The designers have no way of knowing if your slab is on solid granite, reactive clay or swamp. They just design for worst case. Likely, the rest of you are blessed with less reactive soils and a more even rainfall pattern.

A realistic way to look at it (for me) is that concrete is relatively cheap the first time round. $400 for an extra 2 cubes of concrete is pretty cheap insurance. It's next to nothing in the overall cost of the shed. A blip on the cost of grinder and transport.

I do appreciate the spirit in which you have all suggested that I not obsess about the machine foundation. I'll likely choose which way I'll put a grinder, just excavate down another 400mm and fill that area with concrete and steel! I shall obsess no more, I have a plan, throw money in a hole, become a politician, it's all good!

RayG- thanks for the suggestion, I'll look at that when I get to that stage.


Cheers

The Bery Bloke

Hi Berylbloke,

Sounds like you have the same sort of clay soils we have to contend with, the common practice around here is what is called a raft floor, which consists of a framework of re-inforced trenches and the 100mm thick floor is all one unit, so it effectively "floats" on the clay, which is why they call it a raft floor I guess. My workshop floor was poured that way, with 300x300 edge trench and a criss cross 300x300 through the middle.

I remember reading somewhere that it is a good choice floor slab design for earthquake prone areas, the whole slab moves as a single unit.

Ray

EDIT: http://www.build.com.au/building-reactive-soil-sites
Looks like Shepparton soils have deep moisture variation, or fall under the class D inclusion. I'd guess my location would be classed as H1-D